17 different women, 36 crazy children, 0 babies in utero
Adventures, Advice and Questions from a group of Mormon women who met in Queens, NY and have now scattered all over the place.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

The Friend Goes Freaky

I know the March issue of The Friend is already out, but I'm a little behind and was reading through the Febuary issue a couple of days ago with 3 year old Princess. She is old enough now to really enjoy the stories even when there is only one picture and a whole page full of text. Even so, she still like the comics the best. In every issue, there is one about a past prophet and then there is another comic called Matt and Mandy. In the January issue, Matt and Mandy talked about reading the scriptures in a funny sort of way and in the March issue they try to get to heaven by jumping on a trampoline but decide the better way to do it is to choose the right. A little cheesy, but cute and it catches some of the innocence of youth.

Now for the February issue where I got a little freaked out. I start reading Princess the Matt and Mandy comic. The topic was tattoos. Huh? I have to admit I was caught off guard a little bit. But I continued on. By the end, I was really disturbed by this little comic. I can't quite put my finger on it.

Maybe is was because these two little girls are discussing tattoos while coloring pictures with crayons. Aren't they like six or seven? And who is the one little girl's mom who's taking her to the Park Street tattoo artist? Whether you think getting tattos is right or wrong, it seems a little young for a child to be getting a tattoo or even talking about tattoos. Do I just not have a clue how "grown-up" kids are these days? Am I totally out of it? I realize readership for The Friend goes up to age 11, but it also starts at age 3.

Maybe the reason is because when Pres. Hinkley made his statement about tattoos and multiple earrings, it was a hard pill for me to swallow for many reasons. Anyway, to have a comic try to explain such a complex (in my mind) thing, using logic that just didn't make sense, left me wriggling in my seat.

45 Comments:

Yeah, I read it and had close to the same reaction you did. I thought the conversation betweent the two girls was odd and a little off, and didn't read it to my 4 year old- he doesn't know yet what a tattoo is.

Sometimes when things are created in a vacuum, they miss the mark, and I think occasionally the church literature is a little too vacuum-y- especially when you are the only member in your family.

PS. I have friends who have tattoo's and multip. piercings who also hold valid temple recommends.
posted by Tracy M at 3/14/2006 09:00:00 AM

I have noticed that a lot of coloring books and toys these days include "free tattoos". I know my kids (3 and 5 at the time) like to put them on. I have briefly talked to them about not getting real ones.

Maybe with the kiddie tattoos, the editors felt it was appropriate to start the lessons young.

As far as going to the temple with piercings/tattoos, I think it's good that it's not a requirement to be piercing/tattoo free to go to the temple. I also think that it is good to teach people not to get them. I think it's a respect issue. We need to respect our bodies, and body mutilation is not a sign of respect.
posted by Ian at 3/14/2006 09:34:00 AM

We enjoy our fair share of kiddie tattoos in our house too, but seriously, they are way different. They are temporary embellishments and not a slippery slope to hell. (Not that I think that is where a real tattoo will take you - but you get my point).

Ian -- I agree with your idea of teaching children to have respect for their bodies, but doing it in the framwork of tattoos is, IMHO, inappropriate.

So, this is my first time posting a comment. I have not read the comic in the Friend, so my comment does not go directly to that, but to the "body mutilation" comment. I have a tatoo, that I had done on my 18th birthday (which was some time ago) I also had some body piercing. Which I have since taken out since the prophet spoke about this subject a few years back. I have no regrets though for my choices I made on my 18th birthday. I still love my tatoo, it's not as cute anymore, considering it's on the back part of my hip, and I've had two pregnancies. But all the same it is still apart of me, and who I was at that time of my live, and who I still am. I have never kept my tatoo a secret from my two children either. My oldest calls it my "ugly" since I tell her it's "ugly" when she colors on her skin. So she has made that connection. When she is old enough I'll tell her the story about my "ugly" and what it means to me. And maybe she will always think it's ugly, or maybe she will make a choice like mine. Either way I will as a parent teach her what the prophet has taught us and about respect for her body and that her "body is a temple". In my case I really felt that my temple needed a little decorating.
posted by Anonymous at 3/14/2006 01:14:00 PM

Don't tell, but I'm primary president and mother of 3 and I've never noticed Matt and Mandy! I might be losing my mind. Is it new this year? Anyway, I agree that members may discuss tatoos early because of the temporary tatoos kids use. I've had to explain the difference of the two to my 5 year old so the topic doesn't surprise me. But yes, some kids may be too young--why bother with the subject if they haven't brought it up yet. (But my word! That little girl's mom was already encouraging and offering her money to get one!? Crimeny! That IS a little freaky! They could have approached the topic a little differently, that's for sure!)

Also, a question for "anonymous", (and please, I'm really curious, not critical). Do you think there's another way for people to express themselves when they have a significant time in their lives (like yours at 18) other than tatoos? Say your teen wants a tatoo but you don't think they should, but you also understand they're passionate about something. How else (and anyone else can reply) can people express themselves?
posted by Katie at 3/14/2006 02:29:00 PM

When I was 19 I planned out my tattoo and then at the last minute, skipped out on it. I'm now 30 and still want to get that tattoo. I just haven't been able to fully reconcile what the prophet has taught on the subject and my own intentions.

Like "Anonymous", I too feel like my tattoo-to-be represents something significant that happened in my life and I want to, for lack of a better phrase, etch it into my skin. There were two occasions last year where I came close to getting it done...but didn't.

I haven't had to address getting a tattoo or not with my kids yet because it hasn't come up (they are 3 and 17 months). But when it does, to be honest I'm not sure what I'll say. Aside from teaching them that their bodies are temples and special...I don't know how I will talk about tattoos yet. I'm more worried about the questions that will inevitably come up when they are old enough to ask, "Hey mom/dad, did you do (fill in the blank)?" Wince. Not looking forward to those.
posted by chloe at 3/14/2006 03:14:00 PM

Soooo bizarre!!! I agree w. Tracy M. There are so many better ways they could have helped the sunbeams learn that their bodies are temples.
posted by Jen at 3/14/2006 04:53:00 PM

My cousin (Kage) posted this link for me and wanted to know my perspective on it. So here goes..

I have three tattoo's. One on the back of my neck that shows all the time (I have short hair), one on my right arm (deltoid area), and one on my low back that is growing to a full back piece.

I used to have 11 piercings. I now have 4 that always have something in them and two that I occasionally put something in.

I had all three tattoo's when I went through the temple and 11 piercings.

I'm not sure what my cousin wants my perspective on but I have never had any regrets about my tattoo's. I was raised LDS and was always told my body is a temple. But like "anonymous" I always felt mine needed a little decoration. I liked that it made me different and I stood out in the crowd at church. (I know there are other ways of standing out besides "not respecting" our bodies with "mutilation")

My tattoo's are like a road map for my life. A beautiful piece of art where I express where I have been and where I am going. They are for me and me alone. They make me smile, as weird as that sounds.

I have a three year old little girl who knows what a tattoo is and asks to see mine when I get out of the shower or if she see's it peaking out of a shirt. She loves the colors and tracing the different images. I am still waiting for the conversation about her wanting to get one. Or her asking questions about mine. When that day comes I will let her know that it is her choice, and if she chooses to get a tattoo at the age of 18 I will not think any differently of her.
posted by Anonymous at 3/14/2006 05:27:00 PM

Wow. Wow. That cartoon is FREAKY. My first reaction was a lot like yours Carrie - am I THAT out of touch with what kids are doing these days? But even when I think about the kids in our "urban" Astoria ward, I can't imagine anyone primary age getting a tattoo!!! So the cartoon is DEFINITELY strange to me. I think if the girls had been talking about an older sibling or cousin getting one and wanting one too, that would be a whole lot less jarring and would have still made the point. (Whether you agree with the point or not) As it is, it is just downright strange.
posted by marian at 3/14/2006 06:56:00 PM

anonymous cousin o mine....I didn't know you had 11 piercings...whoa...I am way too chicken for that. I am going to have to check those out at the reunion. Anyway, thanks for stopping in. I too would like to hear what you think of the "comic" strip...it is just so random.

I guess I thought of the strip

A. Why bring this up with these kids? Most kids age 3 to 11 probably only know about tattoos if their parents have them. All the parents here seem to have no regrets about their tattoos, so they would not appreciate/agree with the message of the comic strip.

B. And it seems like whether in the church or out, most parents say: "No tattoos til you're 18!"...so it seems off-base that a little girls' mom would be taking her to the tattoo parlor.

C. Would a comic strip about getting double piercings be more appropriate/send the same message? I don't know...

D. I think my daughter thinks tattoos are only a temporary thing...this comic strip might confuse her...like...why are these princess tattoos (that rub off in a week) BAD? She sort of views them as stickers...

Kage, I did all kinds of fun and unmentionable (on this blog) things that I hope I don't need to someday talk to my kids about. But I probably will - those things have a tendency to come back to you!
posted by chloe at 3/14/2006 07:19:00 PM

Man, I must be the only one that wasn't really bothered by the cartoon.

And it's not that I think sunbeams should be learning about the "evils" of body art or anything...but this magazine IS for 11 yr olds, too. And being PP in my ward, and seeing what my 11 yr. old girls face (yes, even in Provo), it doesn't seem that far-fetched.
posted by Cheryl at 3/14/2006 07:49:00 PM

Cheryl, I wasn't bothered by the message of the cartoon, or even that they were trying to deliver it to young kids. I just think that the idea that this little girl's (not clear how old she is) mom says "honey here's some money to go get a tattoo" is a bit far-fetched and detracts from any message that may be delivered. There is definitely a better way to discuss the topic of tattoos that would make more sense!
posted by marian at 3/14/2006 08:36:00 PM

oh, carrie! You know me! I guess I'm just disturbed that everyone's being so critical of a magazine that is published by the Church...
posted by Cheryl at 3/15/2006 07:11:00 AM

Come on Cheryl, everything else aside - message taught, age and subject appropriateness, you at least have to admit the very first box of the comic where the little girl says her mom is taking her to get a tattoo is just strange and unrealistic. The situation seems a little more New Era.

If the little girls saw an older person with a tattoo and then started having a conversation about it that seems a little more "The Friend" friendly.

Tracy M didn't read the comic to her 4 year old. Looking back I probably wouldn't have read it to my 3 year old. I guess I never thought that I would have to pre-screen The Friend for my child.
posted by TftCarrie at 3/15/2006 07:38:00 AM

As unrealistic as mothers taking their babies to get their ears pierced for nothing but show?

(Oh, boy! The razzing I'm gonna get for that one --I know it's a common practice that I just happen to not agree with and it doesn't bother me that I'm pretty much the only mom on the planet that won't allow my girls to be pierced until they are teens...carrie --I think Princess and Pumpkin are cute in their piercings, that was not meant to be an insult to you --it's just my view on things.)

The girl who was being allowed by her mother to get a tattoo was probably, in the mind of the writer, not a member of the church. It's not farfetched --when I see the way pre-teens dress now-a-days --that she would get a tattoo and be influenced by her mom. How many mothers in the Church would allow that? I'm guessing none. But in the "world" so to speak? Who knows?

Man, I'm doing a lot of explaining to defend my opinion. I'll probably be labeled as a judgemental person, but I do know that everything they put into that magazine is edited over and over for content and prayed about. I guess that's the part that bothers me the most. There are just so many other things to worry about than a cartoon in a Church magazine.

C'mon Cheryl, member or not, how many 6 to 7 year old kids do you know with tattoos? If you step out of the "they are attacking the church" mode, you must at least admit that this is an incredibly far-fetched scenario. There are a lot of things I worry about teaching my small children - love and respect for others, love for God, etc. Not getting a tattoo simply isn't high on the list.

You are right, there are bigger things to worry about than a comic in a church magazine, but isn't that precisely why this is so weird? You wouldn't think you would have to worry about the magazine at all, but there are several parents who have said they would actually edit the content of the Friend before reading it to their children.

As for whether we are precluded from discussing the content of the Friend simply because those who edit the magazine attempt to be close to the spirit . . . The Friend is not scripture. We shouldn't try to make it scripture. It is a magazine aimed at teaching gospel principles to our children, but one that is created and edited by people like you and me. When the magazine misses the mark, I don't know why we should be afraid to say so. After all, you seem pretty willing to criticize others' parenting decisions, despite that those parents carefully pray for guideance in raising their children.
posted by Todd L. at 3/15/2006 10:14:00 AM

The March 2006 New Era has an article titled "The Problem with Tattoos." Apparently this spring is all about discouraging youth and children from getting tattoos. Personally I thought the cartoon was absurd. In most states you have to be 18 to get a tattoo, parent permission or not. In some states it is 18 or parental approval, but what kind of parent would allow their child to get a tattoo at an age where their favorite color changes as often as their underwear? I completely understand the idea that you should start talking about decisions like this when your kids are young, but at the same time a five year old can't be expected to comprehend the idea and repercussions of a tattoo.
posted by Anonymous at 3/15/2006 10:34:00 AM

So....my opinion is wrong. Is that what this is about? I can't disagree with what the majority of these women have been saying?

Slam me all you want --I was just expressing my opinion (and apologizing for it the entire time).

And for the record --I think carrie is one of the most amazing, beautiful, wonderful, kind-hearted, and caring persons I have ever known. She's a FABULOUS mom, and even though I don't agree with all the things she chooses to do, that doesn't diminish my respect for her one bit. So I am very sorry if I insulted her in any way. I didn't realize my comments were going to be taken so harshly. They must have been, todd, for you to get after me...and it really breaks my heart. I'm sorry, carrie.
posted by Cheryl at 3/15/2006 11:47:00 AM

It seems to me that if a six year old understood how they get the tatoo it would scare them half to death and out of wanting a tatoo. I was scared to get my ears pierced, but the thought of having a needle etch ink into my skin while I sit in a chair - YEOW! Aside from my personal tatoo beliefs, the cartoon IS freaky. When I read Carrie's explanation of the strip I kept thinking "it can't be THAT weird". Then when she posted it - I thought "Wow! It IS that weird". It's truly disturbing. There is no way there are more than a handful of parents that would consider allowing, encouraging and paying for their six year old daughter get a tatoo. I don't care where you think the "world" is on it's slippery slope to hell, there's just no way in my seemingly open mind that I can comprehend this being a believable and common scenario. Very weird. How many of you people out there know a tatooed tween? Maybe I'm out of the loop...wouldn't be the first time.
posted by Melissa at 3/15/2006 12:24:00 PM

All minutae aside in this arguement: The obvious thing, (besides the fact already stated that it's ILLEGAL in most states for a minor to get a tattoo)is if a child is in a home where a tattoo would be condoned at 7 or 8, there are FAR bigger problems going on.
posted by Tracy M at 3/15/2006 01:30:00 PM

I have a friend whose parents had one of their biker friends give her a tattoo for her 12th birthday. As Tracy mentioned, THAT was a family with serious issues....Most children of that age don't know what tattoos are. I feel like the 'comic' opens up a whole new world to children that it isn't appropriate for them to learn about now. If they didn't know that such a thing existed, why put it in their head? Talk about opening the door to temptation.I also have several tattoos. My most recent ones were added 3 years after I recieved my endowments, and yes, I am an active recommend holder. We add pictures to our temple walls, just as I add them to the walls of my temple. The fact that our temples are beautiful places does not make them holy. It is the holiness that leads us to make them beautiful. Perhaps our opinions of beautiful are different? I have spent many hours praying about my personal form of appreciation for this beautiful gift I have been given. I know that the Lord understands my heart and my intent. That's enough for me. These are not spur of the moment pieces. Each one has been given much thought and care. To insinuate that all tattoos will be regreted or are poorly thought out is a disservice to those who spend years contemplating their ink.HOWEVER...I do NOT justify my decision to the youth of the Church. It is a decision that is between ME and the Lord, it has nothing to do with them. I am in a totally different season in my life than they are, so I am in a different position of understanding and experience. There is often a fine line between body art and the unhealthy lifestyles that tend to surround it. Many youth don't have the wisdom to see where this line is. They should be given no cause by me to take my reasons and use them as their own. I tell them 2 things. 1)Pray until you know FOR SURE, don't just talk yourself into it. 2)Wait until you are over 18 and out of your parents' home, so they won't have to pay your medical bills should something happen. Both pieces of advice tend to remove the stardust from their eyes.BTW, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, and I feel no ill will towards those who don't like tattoos. I am offended only by those who insinuate that I will go to hell or that I have no love for our Savior, that isn't rightfully your call to make.
posted by Mo Mommy at 3/16/2006 12:13:00 AM

Katie- A friends parents told her that if she would draw what she wanted for a tattoo and stood by it for 2 years (till she was 18)then she could get it. When 2 years had passed and she had changed the drawing 4 times, she realized that she really didn't want a tattoo that badly after all.
posted by Mo Mommy at 3/16/2006 12:20:00 AM

I thought perhaps I agreed with the rest of you, maybe the introduction does seem far-fetched. However, my sons, 11 and 8, were playing in the woods across the street from our house when some girls their ages came along. As it turns out, the younger one had a foul mouth and the older one had on a shirt exposing her lower back-where she sported a tattoo (she is a sixth grader). I think the point of the article is to inform kids early. Perhaps it came off as being a little strange, but in today's world...
posted by Anonymous at 3/16/2006 06:45:00 AM

I grew up in a household where tattoos were out, simply because my mother thought it was a very STUPID thing to do. She never thought it was morally wrong, she just thought making a permanent decision about how your body would look is unwise.

I don't have really strong feelings one way or the other, but I really like the suggestion of picking one and seeing if your mind doesn't change after a long period of time.

I agree with Tracy - in a home where they're encouraging young children to get tattoos, there are a lot of issues there.

Also, I found it interesting that at the end of the cartoon, they decide to use the "tattoo money" to get hot fudge sundaes. If the message is "your body is sacred and don't mess it up" then I don't think ice cream fits in with that. I love ice cream, don't get me wrong. But I do think ending that particular cartoon in that particular manner sends the message that it only matters what's on the outside, what people see. Don't worry about the inside.
posted by The Wiz at 3/16/2006 09:57:00 AM

wiz...plus aren't tattoos pricey? That is a whole lot of ice cream...I wish they had sent the money to Katrina or Tsunami victims instead.
posted by Kage at 3/16/2006 10:40:00 AM

kage - I didn't even think of that! Yes, tattoos are like $175 - $250, I think. (I'm desperatly trying to recall an article I read a while ago.) That is one heck of an ice cream sundae.

I'll bet the editors of The Friend have no idea how much a tattoo cost.

I agree, sending the money to someone in need would have been much better. And I know I've read stories in the Friend where kids have done that.
posted by The Wiz at 3/16/2006 01:19:00 PM

This whole post bothers me...I still havent pinpointed why. I didnt read the friend. I dont get it because my child doesnt read yet. I think this hits home to fundamental problems that i have with the church. (note: i said church...not doctrine)I feel that as members, we are too willing to go along with what others push on us as "worthy material'. Like Todd said, these magazines arent scripture. These are non-perfect humans running this magazine. What they consider the "majority experience" is definitly not going to be. In this world your children need YOUR guidance and knowledge, not the guidance of some mag editor living the peachy life in Utah. That goes for tatoos, drinking, sex, over eating and any other subject that will show up in these mags.I too would love to have the comfort of knowing i can leave my child with a magazine, friend or situation and not have to worry about what goes into their little heads, but im not that nieve. It would be nice not to have to screen things, but its probably best to remember that that is one of the commitments you are (or should be) making when you become a parent. That and also to take a few things with a grain of salt and keep living life like you know you should.

Maybe instead of trying to cater to kids with this "look, this magazine is cool" comic strip they should have a small section that asks parents to talk to thier children about a certain subject. Which for spring, seems to be tatoos. And yes i realize not every parent will, although it seems all you bloggers would! Just for the record: Between my DH and I we have three tatoos. I do and i dont regret it. I dont think i am a body mutilator because of it. I do think i can be responsible enough to know when the appropriate time is to discuss it with my children without the help of mork and mindy....or whoever the #@%% they are!
posted by ksl at 3/17/2006 04:31:00 PM

LOL!!! I missed that one in my Friendly reading last month. When I saw the picture on your post, I thought you had photoshopped it. The dialogue is not exactly authentic sounding.

At first it totally freaked me out, but after reading all the comments, I think we can all chill just a bit. We all come from different backgrounds, right?

Who knows where the person who draws the cartoon was coming from. If Cheryl's living in happy valley as a PP and she thinks it has merit, maybe that's worth listening to.

I tend to think of the Friend as a children's magazine, but in our society most 11-year-olds are not given the luxury of remaining childlike.

The thing being questioned in this post was age-appropriateness, not whether or not tattoos are okay and I guess if parents in my high school were buying drugs and alcohol for their kids 10 years ago, it's totally possible that a 10 or 11 year-old's parents could be taking them to get a tattoo.

I know I'm coming to this party late so maybe this will fall on deaf ears (eyes?)...but I can't leave it alone. I agree with Cheryl. If this thread is about the approriateness of the topic for 3-11 yr olds then I think The Friend was right on target. One of the goals of the church mags is to provide complimentary material on certain subjects each month through out the three magazines. It is supposed to help families (parents prayerful discretion advised) discuss and be aware of these issues. I feel that it is a little nieve to think most pre-schoolers don't know about tattoos. My kids got the fake ones with their valentines this year! I also agree with The Daring One, children are growing up much faster than we can imagine. We don't have the luxury of ignoring this as not plausable (at least I don't). To punctuate this take a quick peek at some of the reality shows on. The one creating quite a fuss in my community is "The Real Housewifes of Orange County" on Bravo Network. These are real people who's kids go to school with my kids, who are neighbors to my ward members...tattoos are the most benign on the list of issues. And to take this a few steps further...Our stake YM/YW standards night was last Sunday. Sadly I didn't attend--not my age bracket yet. But my PP did attend and recapped in presidency mtg because she felt impressed that it was an important topic for our primary children as well. Pornography. The target age now is 8-12 year olds!! And the counsel to parents was to go home and talk to your kids in those ages too! If we can't (or wont) talk to our pre-schoolers about tattoos then how do we discuss pornography with our grade-schoolers? These things are shocking to me! And I'm more than a little angry that I have to have these discussions with my sweet innocent boys. But the alternative is beyond my imagination!
posted by Anonymous at 3/21/2006 12:24:00 AM

Thanks everyone for your comments. I have continued to sort out my feelings about the matter. And here are my final thoughts. For me, the topic of tattoos is appropriate for some of The Friend readership--but not all. But, even for the kids where this subject is age appropriate, I still feel the presentation of the topic was way off the mark. I am not against talking to my 3 year old about tatoos but I would never approach the subject the way they did.

To the Latercomer Anonymous - I can't wait to see the "Matt and Mindy - Pornography Edition". Should be interesting!

And my final thought - maybe the church should consider creating "The Friend - Provo and Orange County Edition". That way more serious topics can be aimed directly to those where the primary kids are going to hell in a handbasket. :)
posted by TftCarrie at 3/21/2006 07:45:00 AM

"And my final thought - maybe the church should consider creating "The Friend - Provo and Orange County Edition". That way more serious topics can be aimed directly to those where the primary kids are going to hell in a handbasket."

I'm coming to this discussion late, but the other thing that I thought was strange was the format. To me, the cartoon seems like a style that younger children would be drawn to. If the editors really feel that children need to hear about tatoos, a longer story/article that targets the 8+ age group would be a better way to do it than the cartoon.
posted by Michelle at 3/23/2006 05:34:00 AM